Throughout the course of Writing for the Sciences, my perspective on what science writing is, and its goal, has evolved into a much richer understanding of the concept. Whereas prior I assumed science writing was limited to research papers and publications, my definition of science writing has expanded to include all science-related works that are meant to communicate information to not only other scientists, but to a broader audience. Although the purpose of scientific writing is flexible, as there is no set topic on which science writing is fixed upon, I have also realized that the information must be tailored for not only other scientists, but for a general population to understand. Also, a hallmark of science writing which I have come to appreciate over the course of this class was that it must be concise and precise. In essence, science writing cannot be wordy or complex to comprehend, as the main goal of this type of writing is to communicate the information itself. Whereas prior I assumed that science writing must be over-complicated with technical jargon, my perception of science writing has evolved to exclude this mindset. Hence, the responsibility of the writer is to ensure that the information can be accessed without wrestling through unnecessary jargon. However, a proper background on the topic must also be provided before delving into the main premise of the topic as well, which is a characteristic of science writing.  

In addition, another key component of this course is the extent to which I have achieved the course learning outcomes. For the most part, my writing has transformed to incorporate a majority of the elements of the writing process indicated by the outcomes. However, in particular, the course learning objectives which I have most thoroughly met are my source use practices and formulating/articulating my stance throughout my writing. For instance, in my most recent work, the literature review, I was able to come full circle and visualize how my use of sources has evolved. In my literature review, I write “This indicates a possible stimulatory effect on hunger, which causes people, and rats, to eat more as seen amongst both studies (Lavin et al. 1997; Ballard et al. 2012).” In this quotation, I integrated information from two sources, which required my full understanding of both texts. This represents a shift from my previous methods, as now I am able to understand and integrate multiple texts. In addition, in my general audience essay, I maintained a clear focus throughout its entirety. I stated, “it begs the question: how can the symptoms of the novel coronavirus be identified in order to stop its infection?” By focusing the essay on this topic, and intriguing the reader to maintain their focus, my stance was effectively communicated. Although these were two areas in which I have made progress in, one area in which I may have stagnated is my ability to acknowledge linguistic differences as resources. The reason for this is because I believe I have already started strong in this category, commanding a high level of the english language from the get go. In one of the first assignments, the scholarly article analysis, I wrote “Hedging verbs were widely avoided in this section, and the past tense and active voice was widely employed in the results section.” In this section, the language I employed here was able to be understood by everyone and was not over complicated, while simultaneously being written at a high level. In totality, I have demonstrated remarkable progress not only in regards to the course objectives, but in terms of my ability to communicate myself as a writer as well. 

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.